SHOWKAT AHMAD ITOO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the medium of instant Habeas Corpus Petition, detenue--Showkat Ahmad Itoo seeks quashment of detention order No. 10/DMA/PSA/DET/2013 dated 20.08.2013 which has been slapped upon him by District Magistrate Anantnag invoking powers under Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act as his activities were found to be "prejudicial to the security of the State" and "maintenance of public order". The detenue stands lodged in Central Jail--Kote Bhalwal, Jammu. He was already in custody in case under FIR No. 56/2013 under Sections 454, 382, 506, 120-B RPC, 7/25 Arms Act, Police Station Doru, Anantnag when the detention order was slapped upon him. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that in the impugned order of detention, the detaining authority has not spelt out any compelling reasons for detaining the detenue while he was already in custody in case under FIR No. 56/2013. He has further contended that in the impugned order of detention, it is recorded that the District Magistrate was satisfied that with a view to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the "security of the State" and "maintenance of public order", it was necessary to detain him under the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978. The grounds of detention are concluded as follows;

(2.) Adverting to the Record, it appears that the District Magistrate is not certain whether the alleged activities of the detenue posed threat to the "security of the State" or to "maintenance of public order". This suggests non-application of mind while passing the order of detention. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in "G.M. Shah v. State of J & K", 1980 1 SCC 132 . It reads;

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner next contended that the material forming the basis for grounds of detention including the dossier and connected documents referred to in the order of detention have not been supplied to the detenue, who has been deprived of making an effective representation against the order of detention. Thus, it is contended, the right guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India stands infringed.